AMD has gained over 10 % of GPU marketshare over last year (4 quarters)
Too bad they lost more money in Q3 2016 then any Quarter in the past 3 years. Which is why its kinda scary if you sit down to look at the numbers. You can only hope that money was spent preparing for something and not another underbid contract.
I am very happy with it I came on here in march told people to buy it when it was $3 a share, now its at $8.80 a share. I got 5000 shares in March, its still trading well below my due diligence that is based solely on holdings and physical assets, I have it $12 a share value, and that is not taking into account the contracts with PlayStation or Microsoft for the PS Pro, Xbox S. What is really interesting is the closed room talk going on with Google right now.
Some history lessons for those who want to rewrite history like that completely deluded "Shinami" guy and quite a few others like Laserit, Vrika, filmoret, GDemani and rest of NVidia paid shills
at some point you have to ask why people keep buying more expencive inferior products
no, no need for answer its a rhethorical question but a fun fact
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that."
Some history lessons for those who want to rewrite history like that completely deluded "Shinami" guy and quite a few others like Laserit, Vrika, filmoret, GDemani and rest of NVidia paid shills
at some point you have to ask why people keep buying more expencive inferior products
(no, no need for answer its a rhethorical question)
Untill they actually start making money. I'm not going to hold my breath right now. Q3 2016 was a big red flag. I mean how many quarters of loss can a company make before they finally go under?
Some history lessons for those who want to rewrite history like that completely deluded "Shinami" guy and quite a few others like Laserit, Vrika, filmoret, GDemani and rest of NVidia paid shills
at some point you have to ask why people keep buying more expencive inferior products
no, no need for answer its a rhethorical question but a fun fact
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that."
Interesting analysis, and he is quite right, Nvidia got the mindshare early and have been 'good enough*' to keep it since.
I must admit, I was one of the people who brought into Fermi (GTX470), mainly because my previous ATI card (back when they were ATI) was, to put it nicely, less than impressive. Despite the 470 being lackluster (it ran all my games ok, but way too much power draw / heat) I later got a 780, which was good, but expensive, and I was ready to go back to AMD for this round on the promise of the 480... unfortunately the 480 just can't match the 1070 for a simple single card solution in terms of raw power (i.e. better frame rates in most games), and DX12 is W10 only (FYI: not a fan).
I also fear his conclusion is correct, and as much as I hope the next high end AMD card is awesome (if only to get away from the Nividia 'Experience'), I'm not sure it won't be too little too late.
* By 'good enough' I mean that none of their cards have been bad enough to make the average person seek an alternative, i.e. even if AMD was better, and cheaper, Nvidia wasn't so much worse that the average gamer took notice.
Some history lessons for those who want to rewrite history like that completely deluded "Shinami" guy and quite a few others like Laserit, Vrika, filmoret, GDemani and rest of NVidia paid shills
at some point you have to ask why people keep buying more expencive inferior products
no, no need for answer its a rhethorical question but a fun fact
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that."
Wow I made it near the top of your shit list. For video cards of all things Glad I'm always on your mind
With the launch of their new GFX cards and some of their CPU,APU chips they are still having problems that will take a few years to recover. Basically they are indebt and have opened up to selling an extra 1 billion worth of the company to help pay it off. This does not necessarily mean its bad but it also doesn't imply anything good at all. Basically they are borrowing money to pay off debts. Its a cycle that every company wants to break at some point.
They diluted the stock to pay off old debts and gave stock at $7.50 to other debt holders. So they won't be in debt for long. With all the things they have in the pipelines AMD is getting ready to take over the market in a big way. They made a deal with Intel for GPU's and the new APU's are about to be very powerful.
Been holding AMD stock for a year now and up 120%.
"They made a deal with Intel for GPU's"
Wow @Malabooga is not going to be happy about that.
Yeah no, their current conrtract with NVidia expires in March 2017, and if rumor is true, Intel is dropping NVidia and will licencse AMDs IP.
And yeah, i didnt see Intel stuffing GeForce in their chips so they wont be stuffing Radeons in their chips, its just not to be sued by making their own GPUs (however bad they are) lol
And in other news, Vega is apparently quite close to release
AMD is about to eliminate the entire mid-range discreet graphics market. So... it's wise to do something in order to compete in the new market. The SoCs in the XBox Scorpio and PS4 Neo are 8-core with a 6 tflop GPU. If they can get it into a desktop that would be a very big game changer. However, I think Intel only purchased the patent rights. Where Intel and AMD have been going with iGPUs, it might be difficult to pair them on a single chip. Still a patent deal is about as much money AMD makes in a year off GPUs.
Also just for an update. The GTX 1060 6GB is slower than the RX 480 8GB based on recent testing. AMDs traditional increase in performance over time is taking effect as well as AMDs more aggressive driver releases. In DX11 and OpenGL, AMD is about on par. In DX12 and Vulkan it increased it's advantage to 6%. Still the market has already recognized this. The RX 480 is still selling above MSRP except the few Christmas deals, and the GTX 1060 is down to MSRP.
Also just for an update. The GTX 1060 6GB is slower than the RX 480 8GB based on recent testing. AMDs traditional increase in performance over time is taking effect as well as AMDs more aggressive driver releases. In DX11 and OpenGL, AMD is about on par. In DX12 and Vulkan it increased it's advantage to 6%. Still the market has already recognized this. The RX 480 is still selling above MSRP except the few Christmas deals, and the GTX 1060 is down to MSRP.
People just dont understand what licenscing IP means, just like when Intel licensed x64 from AMD....it didit buy and suddenly started producing AMD chips lol
And for second part same happened with 970/390, when fanbois/public sobered up from lies and deceit 390 was selling better at higher price as its just better GPU. And it was completely justified as 390 is now 15+% faster than 970.
Same with 960/380, where 380 is now 25+% faster than 960
same with 270x/760 same with 280/x/770 same with 290/780
the new rumor that its signed comes from same man (Kyle Bennet) whose "industry sources" said that Polaris 10 (RX470/RX480/PS4 Pro) cant go above 850 MHz and is delayed to 2017. And he has many more brainfarts like that one.
With the launch of their new GFX cards and some of their CPU,APU chips they are still having problems that will take a few years to recover. Basically they are indebt and have opened up to selling an extra 1 billion worth of the company to help pay it off. This does not necessarily mean its bad but it also doesn't imply anything good at all. Basically they are borrowing money to pay off debts. Its a cycle that every company wants to break at some point.
They diluted the stock to pay off old debts and gave stock at $7.50 to other debt holders. So they won't be in debt for long. With all the things they have in the pipelines AMD is getting ready to take over the market in a big way. They made a deal with Intel for GPU's and the new APU's are about to be very powerful.
Been holding AMD stock for a year now and up 120%.
If you been holding AMD for a year then you would be up 420%.
That doesn't necessarily mean that we will see GCN graphics cores in an Intel CPU.
Right now, Intel pays nVidia a good chunk of money - not because Intel is dropping CUDA compute units into their iGPU, but because to make any GPU at all, you need access to patents, and there are really only a small handful of players that you can license these patents from. Intel lost a patent case to nVidia a few years ago (2012 maybe?), and now they have to license the IP, even though they are using their own implementation of it.
That licensing deal with nVidia does expire. I believe it's 2018, but I wouldn't quote me on that.
So either they renew the deal with nVidia (who is aggressively competing with Intel in the HPC/Deep Learning market), or they found a new deal with AMD to get access to their IP portfolio for graphics design (who is barely competing with them in any market right now). They sightly redesign their iGPU so that now instead of using "nVidia" patents, it uses AMD patents.
That is what I see as the most likely outcome of this. It would be awesome to see GCN in Intel CPUs, but I just don't see that happening - AMD has too much wrapped up in their own APU and CPU line, and that would essentially kill off their own desktop and consumer markets, and threaten to move in on the console turf they have recently carved out for themselves.
Ooh it could be a trick from intel to get AMD depending on them so they are pressured into leaving the apu and cpu market alone. Otherwise its not very smart to pour money into a competitor.
It might just be a patent licensing deal, akin to the cross-licensing deals that AMD and Intel have had for x86 for many years. There were similar rumors about an Intel+Nvidia deal a while back that ended up just being a patent licensing agreement.
That said, I wouldn't be shocked to see products show up with an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU in the same package. Remember that Intel licensed Imagination's PowerVR GPU for one generation of Atom, so this wouldn't be unprecedented on Intel's part. And AMD has been pushing semi-custom for years as a way to license out their tech for years.
I'd be very surprised to see AMD sign over the rights for Intel to use whatever AMD GPU architecture they please in whatever product they please. But it would be much less surprising to see a deal for selected products and selected markets.
One question is whether Intel wants to shut down their GPU division entirely, as they've spent a ton of money on it for mediocre products. If so, then for laptops, because you pretty much have to have an integrated GPU, Intel would have to license a GPU from someone. A long-term deal with AMD to use AMD's GPU would let them do that.
Another possibility would be markets where a small form factor is paramount. This could be for all-in-ones (e.g., future iMac) or very small form factor desktops where having a powerful integrated GPU is a huge advantage over needing a discrete card. It could also be for data centers or HPCs where you want a zillion boxes and having the GPU in the same package as the CPU brings huge advantages, from size/cooling to skipping the PCI Express bus.
Remember that Intel had nothing to sell for the faster-than-CPU market until they bought Altera, and even with Altera, FPGAs aren't exactly the most versatile chips or easiest things to program. AMD is nearing five years of having GPU architectures far more suited for non-graphical compute than any other GPUs on the market--pointedly including Nvidia, though not limited to them, though Nvidia's GP100 chip might put an end to that streak.
Have to wonder if Intel intends to take over AMD, it might actually turn AMD's fortunes around though a certain amount of 'rebranding' would be necessary, as the Intel brand is associated with quality and performance, if a heavier price tag, something that AMD would definitely benefit from.
Have to wonder if Intel intends to take over AMD, it might actually turn AMD's fortunes around though a certain amount of 'rebranding' would be necessary, as the Intel brand is associated with quality and performance, if a heavier price tag, something that AMD would definitely benefit from.
I don't think they could take over AMD's processor manufacturing due to anti-monopoly laws.
Comments
keep trying, maybe in 20 years of studying youll finally figure out somple financial report lol
at some point you have to ask why people keep buying more expencive inferior products
no, no need for answer its a rhethorical question but a fun fact
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that."
real speicmen that invokes
I must admit, I was one of the people who brought into Fermi (GTX470), mainly because my previous ATI card (back when they were ATI) was, to put it nicely, less than impressive. Despite the 470 being lackluster (it ran all my games ok, but way too much power draw / heat) I later got a 780, which was good, but expensive, and I was ready to go back to AMD for this round on the promise of the 480... unfortunately the 480 just can't match the 1070 for a simple single card solution in terms of raw power (i.e. better frame rates in most games), and DX12 is W10 only (FYI: not a fan).
I also fear his conclusion is correct, and as much as I hope the next high end AMD card is awesome (if only to get away from the Nividia 'Experience'), I'm not sure it won't be too little too late.
* By 'good enough' I mean that none of their cards have been bad enough to make the average person seek an alternative, i.e. even if AMD was better, and cheaper, Nvidia wasn't so much worse that the average gamer took notice.
Hugs and Kisses from Canada
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Wow @Malabooga is not going to be happy about that.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
And yeah, i didnt see Intel stuffing GeForce in their chips so they wont be stuffing Radeons in their chips, its just not to be sued by making their own GPUs (however bad they are) lol
And in other news, Vega is apparently quite close to release
http://videocardz.com/64637/secret-amd-vega-tech-day-is-happening-right-now
AMD has just launched Crmson ReLive, biggets driver suite update in history
http://videocardz.com/64496/amd-preparing-crimson-relive-driver-update
AND their stock price is over 10$, sitting currently at 10,34$. Not even most optimistic analyst expected that in 2016. lol
However, I think Intel only purchased the patent rights. Where Intel and AMD have been going with iGPUs, it might be difficult to pair them on a single chip. Still a patent deal is about as much money AMD makes in a year off GPUs.
Also just for an update. The GTX 1060 6GB is slower than the RX 480 8GB based on recent testing. AMDs traditional increase in performance over time is taking effect as well as AMDs more aggressive driver releases. In DX11 and OpenGL, AMD is about on par. In DX12 and Vulkan it increased it's advantage to 6%. Still the market has already recognized this. The RX 480 is still selling above MSRP except the few Christmas deals, and the GTX 1060 is down to MSRP.
And for second part same happened with 970/390, when fanbois/public sobered up from lies and deceit 390 was selling better at higher price as its just better GPU. And it was completely justified as 390 is now 15+% faster than 970.
Same with 960/380, where 380 is now 25+% faster than 960
same with 270x/760
same with 280/x/770
same with 290/780
...
...
...
...
pattern is obvious lol
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/224964-report-claims-intel-amd-discussing-gpu-patent-licensing
the new rumor that its signed comes from same man (Kyle Bennet) whose "industry sources" said that Polaris 10 (RX470/RX480/PS4 Pro) cant go above 850 MHz and is delayed to 2017. And he has many more brainfarts like that one.
Right now, Intel pays nVidia a good chunk of money - not because Intel is dropping CUDA compute units into their iGPU, but because to make any GPU at all, you need access to patents, and there are really only a small handful of players that you can license these patents from. Intel lost a patent case to nVidia a few years ago (2012 maybe?), and now they have to license the IP, even though they are using their own implementation of it.
That licensing deal with nVidia does expire. I believe it's 2018, but I wouldn't quote me on that.
So either they renew the deal with nVidia (who is aggressively competing with Intel in the HPC/Deep Learning market), or they found a new deal with AMD to get access to their IP portfolio for graphics design (who is barely competing with them in any market right now). They sightly redesign their iGPU so that now instead of using "nVidia" patents, it uses AMD patents.
That is what I see as the most likely outcome of this. It would be awesome to see GCN in Intel CPUs, but I just don't see that happening - AMD has too much wrapped up in their own APU and CPU line, and that would essentially kill off their own desktop and consumer markets, and threaten to move in on the console turf they have recently carved out for themselves.
Had nothing else since.
If you want...
Cheap: AMD
Quality: NVidia
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
I do business and have got together with some of my competitors on a few projects. Its always been a win for everyone involved.
The us vs them mentality isn't always the best or most intelligent way to go about things.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
That said, I wouldn't be shocked to see products show up with an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU in the same package. Remember that Intel licensed Imagination's PowerVR GPU for one generation of Atom, so this wouldn't be unprecedented on Intel's part. And AMD has been pushing semi-custom for years as a way to license out their tech for years.
I'd be very surprised to see AMD sign over the rights for Intel to use whatever AMD GPU architecture they please in whatever product they please. But it would be much less surprising to see a deal for selected products and selected markets.
One question is whether Intel wants to shut down their GPU division entirely, as they've spent a ton of money on it for mediocre products. If so, then for laptops, because you pretty much have to have an integrated GPU, Intel would have to license a GPU from someone. A long-term deal with AMD to use AMD's GPU would let them do that.
Another possibility would be markets where a small form factor is paramount. This could be for all-in-ones (e.g., future iMac) or very small form factor desktops where having a powerful integrated GPU is a huge advantage over needing a discrete card. It could also be for data centers or HPCs where you want a zillion boxes and having the GPU in the same package as the CPU brings huge advantages, from size/cooling to skipping the PCI Express bus.
Remember that Intel had nothing to sell for the faster-than-CPU market until they bought Altera, and even with Altera, FPGAs aren't exactly the most versatile chips or easiest things to program. AMD is nearing five years of having GPU architectures far more suited for non-graphical compute than any other GPUs on the market--pointedly including Nvidia, though not limited to them, though Nvidia's GP100 chip might put an end to that streak.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-evga-catches-fire-video/
another deluded guy lol, its so funny that they didnt read the thread to see how stoopid they sound